• HA

    I found a rule in another 39 game from a fellow AA member and his liner ship values are A0 D2 M3 C8 2Hits transport 3 inf non combat.  :evil:

  • '17 '16

    Can I find this a little OP, 2 hits for a liner ship?
    :-D :-o :-D


  • @Baron:

    Can I find this a little OP, 2 hits for a liner ship?
    :-D :-o :-D

    No   Its not over powered when your the rules designer and love UK !!!  Must be 400 yards long and has 77 Artillery guns.  :-D :-D :-D

    I haven’t heard from him in over a year and a half now. He came out with his 39 game back in 97. I played this game and the Liner Ship never really got attacked. The transports in game had D1 shot at a plane for D6 system. But they had options to escape in certain scenrios with subs and planes. But the transports carried ground pieces and there were convoy routes they had to follow.
    Each country had to have a certain amount of transports at start of every turn. If you didn’t,  you had to pay 2 icps to bank. So sometimes just cheaper to pay to the bank then to buy a tranny and then get it killed in convoy but then no Lend Lease ground pieces.

  • '17 '16

    Since military TPs seems to be equipped with a minimal armaments, it may be played that only when they are directly hit, each get @1 on D12. As long as any escort is present, they don’t roll.
    Once escorting warships are all down in a given combat round, the next one all TPs roll for defense against aircraft. All attacking units have to roll, the combat continue until all TPs are sunk. Attacker can never loose warship, but may lost many planes if plenty of TPs in stack.
    If air retreat, it is the end of battle. And a few TPs survived then.

  • '17 '16

    @Imperious:

    lets get this straight:
    What you want is to demonstrate that Japan had two glorious transports that they converted with a few portable machine guns ( that never shot down any planes, but were capable) and a coastal gun, then assigning the old " well transports are actually other ships too like armed troopships…. then by osmosis saying " lets give all transports that ever sailed by any navy and every navy the same capability that these two machine guns could of should of would of had and the result is EVERY SHIP IN THE WORLD THAT WAS USED TO TRANSPORT SOLDIERS TO BE ABLE TO SHOOT DOWN ANY PLANE. Knowing all the while that all the combat ships like battleships and cruisers, carriers and destroyers DO NOT HAVE THIS CAPABILITY. Just the transports can shoot down planes with the aa gun.  OK lets do it. I’m convinced. Excellent! It’s well thought out and planned.

    IL, from what I read, here what I saw as the common stages about military troop and vehicule transports, provided a given Power had enough resources (mainly Allies, but also Japan within the level of resources).

    First, converting as much as needed Merchant Cruisers and Liners into Armed (mostly AA) merchant Cruiser and incorporated into Navy services.

    Second, using available but obsolete AA gun armed Troopships for all earlier invasion of WWII, or use Destroyers in dire straits.

    Third, designing and building better Landing ships (with AA armement) for both Infantry, Tank and Amphibious Assault. Also, designing and building Landing Crafts to be put on board of these ships.

    Meanwhile, unarmed merchant cargo Transport were use as far as possible from frontal conflicts for logistics, oil, supplies and economical exchanges. If possible with dedicated escort warships, and in Convoy as much as possible.
    None of these merchant cargo ships were suited or built for amphibious landing, Allies rely unto Landing ships and APA or AKA for direct combat and frontal assault.

    Now, if you have other facts or contradictory proofs, they are welcome.

    My understanding of WWII is far from that of an historian even if it is above the average Joe.

  • '17 '16

    Using Enigma formula here is what I get about TP defending @1:
    @Baron:

    The on going discussion:
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40520.msg1693864#msg1693864
    on Transport with defense roll makes me wonder about actual combat strength of Classic Transport and an escorted TP:

    Transport and Destroyer A2 D2 C15, 1 hit
    Offense & Defense factor:
    36*(2/15^2) = 0.32

    Classic Transport A0 D1 C8, 1 hit
    Defense factor:
    36*(1/8^2) = 0.5625

    As comparison points, a Fighter A3 D4 C10 off/def is 1.08 / 1.44

    Destroyer A2 D2 C8, 1 hit
    Offense & Defense factor:
    36*(2/8^2) = 1.125

    Submarine A2 D1 C6
    Offense:
    36*(2/6^2) = 2.00
    36*(3/6^2) = surprise strike 3.00
    Defense:
    36*(1/6^2) = 1.00
    36*(1.33/6^2) = surprise strike 1.33

    You need to send 2 Destroyers to get a similar defense value with Classic Transport strength of 0.5625:

    Transport and 2 Destroyers A4 D4 C23, 2 hits
    Offense & Defense factor:
    36*(2/11.5^2) = 0.544

    Or make defenseless Transport a 4 IPCs unit to reach the defense factor of Classic:

    Transport C4 and Destroyer C8: A2 D2 C12, 1 hit
    Offense & Defense factor:
    36*(2/12^2) = 0.50

    Now, if you want to introduce a Classic TP with the same strength of actual DD+TP combo 0.32:
    You need to make TP cost 10,5 IPCs:

    Classic Transport A0 D1 C10, 1 hit
    Defense factor:
    36*(1/10^2) = 0.36

    At 11 IPCs, it would be 0.30 though.

    Transport defending A0 D1 might be interesting at a clean cut 10 IPCs.

    For purist, this make me think about another option:
    Make defenseless TP at 3 IPCs but loading only 1 unit.
    That way, it makes it easier to sacrifice one here and there and protecting with warships remains the same.
    But, it will not solve the issue caused by no hit value.
    However, more small TPs can be widespread and require more attacking units to get ride of them in multiple SZs.


  • @Baron:

    Using Enigma formula here is what I get about TP defending @1:
    @Baron:

    The on going discussion:
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40520.msg1693864#msg1693864
    on Transport with defense roll makes me wonder about actual combat strength of Classic Transport and an escorted TP:

    Transport and Destroyer A2 D2 C15, 1 hit
    Offense & Defense factor:
    36*(2/15^2) = 0.32

    Classic Transport A0 D1 C8, 1 hit
    Defense factor:
    36*(1/8^2) = 0.5625

    As comparison points, a Fighter A3 D4 C10 off/def is 1.08 / 1.44

    Destroyer A2 D2 C8, 1 hit
    Offense & Defense factor:
    36*(2/8^2) = 1.125

    Submarine A2 D1 C6
    Offense:
    36*(2/6^2) = 2.00
    36*(3/6^2) = surprise strike 3.00
    Defense:
    36*(1/6^2) = 1.00
    36*(1.33/6^2) = surprise strike 1.33

    You need to send 2 Destroyers to get a similar defense value with Classic Transport strength of 0.5625:

    Transport and 2 Destroyers A4 D4 C23, 2 hits
    Offense & Defense factor:
    36*(2/11.5^2) = 0.544

    Or make defenseless Transport a 4 IPCs unit to reach the defense factor of Classic:

    Transport C4 and Destroyer C8: A2 D2 C12, 1 hit
    Offense & Defense factor:
    36*(2/12^2) = 0.50

    Now, if you want to introduce a Classic TP with the same strength of actual DD+TP combo 0.32:
    You need to make TP cost 10,5 IPCs:

    Classic Transport A0 D1 C10, 1 hit
    Defense factor:
    36*(1/10^2) = 0.36

    At 11 IPCs, it would be 0.30 though.

    Transport defending A0 D1 might be interesting at a clean cut 10 IPCs.

    For purist, this make me think about another option:
    Make defenseless TP at 3 IPCs but loading only 1 unit.
    That way, it makes it easier to sacrifice one here and there and protecting with warships remains the same.
    But, it will not solve the issue caused by no hit value.
    However, more small TPs can be widespread and require more attacking units to get ride of them in multiple SZs.

    I only see a few guys like us going for these values. Gets away from kiss.

    I think its best for the history and non history in games to be for all A&A games is the Transport rolls 1 d12 die for D1 against any attack.  D6 = 16.7 %  D8 = 12.5 %  D10 = 10 %  D12 = 8.33 %

    Taken last for casualties. They have no AA gun.

    Happy medium.


  • Your trying to find the rule by demonstrating the exception. The examples you show do exist, but the level of which they exist compared to the huge majority of what “transports” represent could never in any case raise the aggregate of assigning ALL transports with a combat value of one. These weapons you list are so rudimentary and basic and do little more than fight limited actions. What you should do is leave the transport alone and instead make a new unit… the armed transport which can defend only against other transports and submarines. To allow this unit to have any capability to sink units like the battleship is just silly.

    It should be a new unit costing +1, defends at one, still cannot be brought into battle , but can be used as a raider against other shipping and defend against sub attacks ans still carry the cargo.


  • Knew would chime in.  I’m still undecided yet. Half group wants defense less tranny and half want something but weaker than the A0 D1 at planes only or D1 against any attack.

  • '17 '16

    @Baron:

    @Imperious:

    lets get this straight:
    What you want is to demonstrate that Japan had two glorious transports that they converted with a few portable machine guns ( that never shot down any planes, but were capable) and a coastal gun, then assigning the old " well transports are actually other ships too like armed troopships…. then by osmosis saying " lets give all transports that ever sailed by any navy and every navy the same capability that these two machine guns could of should of would of had and the result is EVERY SHIP IN THE WORLD THAT WAS USED TO TRANSPORT SOLDIERS TO BE ABLE TO SHOOT DOWN ANY PLANE. Knowing all the while that all the combat ships like battleships and cruisers, carriers and destroyers DO NOT HAVE THIS CAPABILITY. Just the transports can shoot down planes with the aa gun.  OK lets do it. I’m convinced. Excellent! It’s well thought out and planned.

    IL, from what I read, here what I saw as the common stages about military troop and vehicule transports, provided a given Power had enough resources (mainly Allies, but also Japan within the level of resources).

    First, converting as much as needed Merchant Cruisers and Liners into Armed (mostly AA) merchant Cruiser and incorporated into Navy services.

    Second, using available but obsolete AA gun armed Troopships for all earlier invasion of WWII, or use Destroyers in dire straits.

    Third, designing and building better Landing ships (with AA armement) for both Infantry, Tank and Amphibious Assault. Also, designing and building Landing Crafts to be put on board of these ships.

    Meanwhile, unarmed merchant cargo Transport were use as far as possible from frontal conflicts for logistics, oil, supplies and economical exchanges. If possible with dedicated escort warships, and in Convoy as much as possible.
    None of these merchant cargo ships were suited or built for amphibious landing, Allies rely unto Landing ships and APA or AKA for direct combat and frontal assault.

    Now, if you have other facts or contradictory proofs, they are welcome.

    My understanding of WWII is far from that of an historian even if it is above the average Joe.

    @Imperious:

    Your trying to find the rule by demonstrating the exception. The examples you show do exist, but the level of which they exist compared to the huge majority of what “transports” represent could never in any case raise the aggregate of assigning ALL transports with a combat value of one. These weapons you list are so rudimentary and basic and do little more than fight limited actions. What you should do is leave the transport alone and instead make a new unit… the armed transport which can defend only against other transports and submarines. To allow this unit to have any capability to sink units like the battleship is just silly.

    It should be a new unit costing +1, defends at one, still cannot be brought into battle , but can be used as a raider against other shipping and defend against sub attacks ans still carry the cargo.

    Strangely IL,
    I saw that Germany used Q-ships as a disguised armed Transport (as Corsairs) and that a few US Troopship survived after being torpedoed.
    But what you are suggesting seems more an oddity than what was massively built by Canada, UK, Australia and USA.
    Q-ships were armed merchants aimed at laying traps to others merchants vessels, not intended to carry military units for invasion and amphibious assault.
    Also, I rarely see any relevant anti-sub weaponry (depth-charge or hedgehog) added on Landing ships, which were the most armed amongst Transport. I may be wrong on that point, but it was mostly AA guns and one or two deck guns for dual purpose against Aircraft or Small surface vessels. It doesn’t seems very effective against any Sub prowling below surface ready to launch torpedoes at this transport. Maybe this dual purpose gun might work when a Sub was rampaging in a Convoy firing with his single deck gun, IDK.

    I agree that Landing ships are no match against Battleship, Carrier and Cruiser or even Destroyer.
    They don’t have armor nor enough deck guns to have any chance.

    All I saw, is that any Transport which was specifically built for military purpose always received Anti-Aircraft guns and one or two deck gun(s).

    What does it imply for game house rule on defense for Transports?

    The game mechanic make things into a conundrum:
    A side) giving a low @1 (on D12) defense against aircraft to figure what Landing ships can counter somehow, is now improving the game unit defense above an ordinary roll, since hitting specifically planes is a bonus when your opponent would have use 6 IPCs Sub or 8 IPCs Destroyer as fodder instead of loosing a costly 10 IPCs Fighter.

    B side) giving a low @1 (on D12) as minimal defense to allow the enemy’s to choose the lowest and weakest naval unit in game as casualty.
    But this would imply that most of the time a Submarine or a Destroyer will be sunk. And since Landing ships does not have enough firepower to sink them, an effective Landing ship defense is not depicting accurately this naval warfare: it let believe military Transport were able of such a feat.

    C side) not giving any combat value to TPs also create an unhistorical depiction because it let you believe that when all escorting Warships were destroyed, all Troopships were immediately obliterate and sunk. This is not either accurate from a realist POV because TPs against overpowered enemies usually scattered and partially survived. Nor it is a game-wise effect, because in a matter of 1 combat round all your TPs and money-worth in a given SZ are taken as casualty if only a single enemy’s unit survived a monstrous naval battle, you may have an infinite number, or 10 units for 70 IPCs or more or less, it does not matter at all. All IPCs invested in TPs in this once protected SZ are now wipe out of the board.
    TPs purchasing is the only unit which does this trick when attacked. Even AAA get a 1 hit value, as long as it share a TT with another ground unit type.

    D side) giving an escape capacity to TPs would be more accurate, also the game allows TPs and Subs to be ignored and to share a SZ with enemy’s units. But, in game, Submarines loose this escaping capacity if only 1 single enemy Destroyer is present. If any Transport survived a naval clash, this would make TPs better at hiding than Submarines themselves!

    E side) using TPs as first line casualty seems to contradict the very mission of warships, as defending TPs not the other way around.

    Solving these issues can be done, if there is other tweaks about Sub vs DDs, or Fighters.

    For example on D, if you give Subs vs DDs a 1:1 ratio to limit DD blocker capacity.
    Then, you can make Transports with no defense roll but give each unit-type a specific ratio of kill against TP.
    For instance, any 1 aircraft sink 1 TP max (limited ordinance and fly time) while all warships sink 2 TPs max (carrying a lot of ammos and stay on SZ without going to port).
    Or you can decide to be more specific:
    Destroyer or Cruiser (or 1942.2 Carrier with A1) sink Transport on a 1:1 ratio
    Battleship or Submarine sink Transport on a 1:2 ratio.
    So, after a large battle, the number of surviving units chasing Transports will matter.

    If you prefer to roll, it can be that once a TP can be directly attacked, there is only two other combat rounds before any remaining TP survived in SZ.
    So, if a the start of a combat, 2 TPs are caught without escort by 1 Strategic bomber, you get 3 rolls (this combat round and the others two) before TPs escape by scattering into this SZ.

    For A, in my game, I can play it because:
    Fighter are Attack 2 (4 on D12) Defense 2 Cost 6,
    TcB are Attack 3 (6 on D12) Defense 2 (4 on D12) Cost 7.
    In that case, they already assumed a fodder role.
    Hence, allowing a Transport Defense against aircraft only is functional.
    Destroyers and all other warships would blast them out.

    For B, you have to assume that there is always a minimal close escort to military Transport. And this was certainly true. Troopships were apple of one’s eye for Navy and Army.
    As I suggested elsewhere, you still take Transport casualty last, but treat all as 1 hit value and give only a single roll @1 each combat round if there is at least 1 Transport present in a given attacked SZ.

    It can still be minimalized by rolling this @1 defense for TPs group when there is only TPs remaining on the battle board.

    There is certainly other tweaks which people can think about.

  • '17 '16

    @SS:

    @Baron:

    Using Enigma formula here is what I get about TP defending @1:
    @Baron:

    The on going discussion:
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40520.msg1693864#msg1693864
    on Transport with defense roll makes me wonder about actual combat strength of Classic Transport and an escorted TP:

    Transport and Destroyer A2 D2 C15, 1 hit
    Offense & Defense factor:
    36*(2/15^2) = 0.32

    Classic Transport A0 D1 C8, 1 hit
    Defense factor:
    36*(1/8^2) = 0.5625

    I only see a few guys like us going for these values. Gets away from kiss.

    I think its best for the history and non history in games to be for all A&A games is the Transport rolls 1 d12 die for D1 against any attack.  D6 = 16.7 %  D8 = 12.5 %  D10 = 10 %  D12 = 8.33 %

    Taken last for casualties. They have no AA gun.

    Happy medium.

    To get a glimpse of the strength of this 1 out of 12, or 0.5 on D6:
    Defense factor:
    36*(0.5/7^2) = 0.367
    Which is near the strength of actual DD+TP combo (0.32).
    A Sub has strength of 2 or 3 if first strike, a DD is 1.125 power*hit


  • I saw that Germany used Q-ships as a disguised armed Transport (as Corsairs) and that a few US Troopship survived after being torpedoed.

    I pointed this out from the get go. They had a few of these and they didn’t shoot down planes. What they did was pretend to be transports, sail near enemy transport and sink with very small deck gun. Against subs they could do nothing except us the deck gun in the event the sub was trying to save torpedoes and finish off ship with their own deck gun on sub. The few examples you brought up did somewhat exist, but again these are extremely few compared to the total quantity of transport/merchant ship types.

  • '17 '16

    @Imperious:

    I saw that Germany used Q-ships as a disguised armed Transport (as Corsairs) and that a few US Troopship survived after being torpedoed.

    I pointed this out from the get go. They had a few of these and they didn’t shoot down planes. What they did was pretend to be transports, sail near enemy transport and sink with very small deck gun. Against subs they could do nothing except us the deck gun in the event the sub was trying to save torpedoes and finish off ship with their own deck gun on sub. The few examples you brought up did somewhat exist, but again these are extremely few compared to the total quantity of transport/merchant ship types.

    From what you say here and in earlier posts and past threads when this topic arise, it gives the impression that Navy and Army asked to merchantmen to help them carrying Troops and Tanks into shore and beaches. That Pacific Island Hopping depends on Merchants Cargos and Operation Torch and D-Days was performed with civilian unarmed transports.

    But, what I read is that civilian ships duty was to carry lend-lease supplies from US to UK or US to Australia or US to USSR.

    Military operations were given specifically to military designated Landing Ships, Infantry or Tank (UK) or Attack Transport APA or Attack Cargo Ship AKA (US).

    So, when looking at what is important in A&A strategy game, it is all about moving combat ground units into enemy’s territories with Transport units.

    The part played by merchant navy is very abstract and only displayed with Convoy Disruption rules in the more detailed Global 40.

    So, is there any unarmed civilian merchant ships which take part into military operations for moving troops purpose?
    This is where I’m actually.
    I always thought it was the case because of this defenseless transport rule and the lack of enough acknowledgement displayed toward Canadian merchant marines risking their lives while delivering goods to UK as part of a war effort worthy of any Royal Canadian Navy members.

    However, my limited readings and scrolling makes me think that specific armed troopships were built to deliver a fast coordinated blow into enemy’s coastal defense and shorelines by carrying all combat units and equipment near the shore as possible. And Allies use exclusively this military ships to do invasion landing.

    Now, they may have use regular civilian transportation to move operational military units from Los Angeles to Hawaii, IDK.
    But, into a warzone, it seems Allies used the best available to protect their men.


  • The transport unit represents the most common type of vessel carrying troops. It was defenseless and slow and needed protection from Destroyers and Escorts. The few cases pointed out where they had a couple of deck guns could become a new unit:

    Escort vessel
    Armed Raider

    but this would be a different unit with a different sculpt and a different cost and probably capability in transport ( just one unit)


  • @Imperious:

    The transport unit represents the most common type of vessel carrying troops. It was defenseless and slow and needed protection from Destroyers and Escorts. The few cases pointed out where they had a couple of deck guns could become a new unit:

    Escort vessel
    Armed Raider

    but this would be a different unit with a different sculpt and a different cost and probably capability in transport ( just one unit)

    Agreed.  The units provided under the OOB rules should be considered standard units, and their capabilities should reflect the capabilities which the average units of that type typically had for most countries during WWII.  They shouldn’t reflect the capabilities of unusual or exceptional units of that type, and they should especially not reflect the capabilities of a unit which was so different from the average that it shouldn’t even be considered to be the same type of unit.  Units with exceptional capabilities should be treated in the game as special extra units which have their own separate identity and their own separate cost, and they should be treated as optional non-standard purchases.  They shouldn’t have their special capabilities applied to standard units, because doing so would distort what the standard units are supposed to represent in the first place.

  • '17 '16

    I’m still learning about troopships.
    Again, I found a different type which was intended to sail from seaport to seaport. It is a C4-S-A1 troopship, it was carrying nearly 4000 soldiers:

    General G. O. Squier was launched 11 November 1942 under Maritime Commission contract (MC Hull #1) by the Kaiser Co., Inc. in Richmond, California; sponsored by Miss Mary Ann Somervell; acquired 30 August 1943 and commissioned 2 October, Captain A. E. Uehlinger in Command.

    General G. O. Squier made three round-trip, troop-carrying voyages out of San Francisco from 29 October 1943 to 30 March 1944 to Noumea; Pearl Harbor, Guadalcanal, Wallis Island, Samoa, Noumea, and Honolulu, respectively. Underway again from San Francisco 7 April she brought troops to Noumea and Milne Bay before heading for Norfolk, where she arrived 2 June. On 1 July the ship departed with 3,300 troops for Italy, and debarked them at Naples. Following a voyage thence to Oran and back, General G. O. Squier joined Task Force 87 off Naples 13 August in preparation for Operation Dragoon, the amphibious invasion of Southern France.

    Again, these kind of troopship is equipped with a variety of AAguns armament:
    4 5"/38 caliber guns
    8 1.1"/75 AA guns
    16 20 mm Oerlikon AA guns

    On Liberty ship, it seems they were meant to be Cargo ships but, still they gave it a few AA guns and a deck gun:

    Armament:
    1x4in or 1x5in stern gun, optional anti-aircraft weaponry such as 3in bow gun, 37mm bow guns, or 20mm machine guns

    While Liberty Ships symbolized wartime American industrial power, they also served the war in a practical sense: a single Liberty Ship could carry 2,840 jeeps, 440 tanks, or 230 million rounds of rifle ammunition. Each Liberty Ship was manned by a crew sized between 38 and 62; the crews were complimented by 21 to 40 US Navy personnel who operated the communications systems and weapons.

    https://ww2db.com/ship_spec.php?ship_id=391

    Another example of a smaller troopship carrying more than 400 soldiers, she was part of Operation Torch, Operation Husky, Operations Neptune and Dragoon, then went into Pacific:

    USS Anne Arundel (AP-76) was an American transport ship that was built in 1940 and scrapped in 1970. Originally laid down as the Mormacyork, she was later named after Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Annapolis is the county seat there, the state capital, and also the home of the Naval Academy. Anne Arundel earned five battle stars for her World War II service.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Anne_Arundel_(AP-76)

    Again, she was equipped with AAguns:
    4 3"/50 caliber guns
    4 40 mm AA guns
    18 20 mm AA guns

    The more I look into Allies, the more I found that AA guns was seemingly a standard equipment on troopships, not a customized option. And this seems to me that Philip Schwartzer has done his homework when he designed the naval combat rules for Transports in WWII The Expansion I for Classic A&A.

    So, all these ships were vulnerable and mostly defenseless against Submarines and other warships.
    But not against aircraft. And in numbers, I’m pretty sure enemy’s pilots were not careless about flying around Troopships while trying to sink them under TPs crossfire.

    So Liberty Ship, which were cargo get minimal AA defense.
    Allies Troopships were all equipped with AA defense of some kind.

    Here is a special case of a single Liberty ship converted into a troopship, it shows both vulnerability to Subs and a certain capacity to defend against planes:

    U-boat encounter
    During the Convoy HX 228 she was slightly damaged at 21.31 hours on March 10th, 1943 when hit by a dud torpedo from German U-boat U-221 commanded by Hans-Hartwig Trojer. Out of the 22 ships hit by this German submarine _SSLawton B. Evans _was the only one to survive.

    Battle of Anzio
    Liberty ships were cargo ships, fitted with guns for defensive purposes.[5] In one notable incident they were used for support from 22 to 30 January 1944 when the Lawton B. Evans was involved in the Battle of Anzio in Italy. First class seaman Calvin Stoddard O’Rourke received commendations for his performance on June 24, 1944 when this ship was under repeated bombardment from hostile shore batteries and aircraft throughout an eight-day period. Despite the prolonged danger ofshrapnel, machine-gun fire and bombs, the gun crew fought back, setting up a deadly barrage of shellfire. They shot down five German planes and contributed to the success of the landing operations.

    So, it is not an impossibility to shot down planes or to escape from Submarine assault.


  • Transports should have a low to zero defense. Period. The units represent the overall flavor of the time period, not individual ships or skirmishes. If a transport wasnt so week on def…there wouldnt have been such tonnage of men and material lost at sea AND these Armed vessels would have been used for defensive patrols instead. Ok…the ship has aa guns and maybe a 5 in…so what? Compare that armament to an escort destroyer. In comparison the transport isnt armed at all. Compare how many escorted transports were sunk against attacking sub, surface ship or plane raids especially compared to the attackers losses.  Those were nothing compared to the shipping losses of unescorted transports. You want to beef up transport value and or realism? Do what the allies did and add destroyers to the convoy for def. Or add a special value for destroyers or transports in a convoy. Try the escort and destroyer rules from the gamers paradise expansion.


  • @Baron:

    Here is a special case of a single Liberty ship converted into a troopship, it shows both vulnerability to Subs and a certain capacity to defend against planes
    […]
    So, it is not an impossibility to shot down planes or to escape from Submarine assault.

    That’s the problematic point.  The situation you’re describing is a special case, not a general one.  Normal units in A&A, in my opinion, should be based on the characteristics which units of that type generally had in most cases for most nations in WWII, and on how they were generally used.  They shouldn’t be based on what one particular unit (or a small number of units) did in unusual circumstances, or on the charactertistics of a unit with a non-standard design.  Otherwise, this would result in a completely distorted picture of what these game units are supposed to be.

    Here’s an example.  During WWII, the French navy (and later the Free French navy) operated one of weirdest submarines ever designed: the Surcouf.  As far as I know, it was the only submarine of its type in the French navy, and possibly even the only one of its type in the world.  It had torpedo tubes, like a normal submarine, but it also carried two 8-inch guns – the type of armament which normally is carried by a heavy (8-inch) cruiser.  And on top of that, it carried a small floatplane in a hangar – so in essence, it was a ship combining characteristics of a submarine and a heavy cruiser and a seaplane carrier.  Depending on one’s point of view, this concept can be regarded as either brilliant or ridiculous; the fact that the world’s naval powers (and even France, its country of origin) didn’t crank out their own versions of this design suggests to me that the concept was viewed as ridiculous, or at least inefficient.  But anyway, that’s not the issue here.  The point is that this submarine was an extremely non-standard design, both by the standards of the French navy and of other navies.  Creating a special, France-specific, optional-purchase A&A submarine unit based on the Surcouf might be amusing, and would be historically justifiable.  On the other had, it would make no sense to change every standard A&A submarine unit, for every country, into a Surcouf-type “underwater heavy cruiser” because (as far as I know) no other country in the world had such a bizarre submarine in their fleet, and (as far as I know) French only had one, and because the design deviated so radically from what countries at the time of WWII considered to be a normal submarine.

    So my point here, getting back to transports, is that it doesn’t matter if there were some transport ships that were more heavily armed than others, or if there were some transport ships that shot down enemy planes or sank submarines.  The point is that most transport ships for most countries in WWII were not significantly armed (or weren’t armed at all), and that those which were armed only had light defensive weapons in most cases.  The standard A&A transport ship, used by every A&A country, should reflect the capabilities of what most standard transport ships for most countries were in WWII: a ship with little or no armament.  Their behaviour shouldn’t be based on what’s “not impossible”, it should be based on what most of them did most of the time.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, the fact that it’s “not impossible” to win the jackpot in a lottery doesn’t change the fact that most of the people who buy lottery tickets rarely or never win the jackpot.

  • '17 '16

    What I’m saying is that merchant navy is one thing and military navy is another.
    As long as a given Power is caught unprepared, they use merchant ships to convey troops.
    But, giving time and resources, which Allies have, they design and built specific troopships and landing ships for military purpose. And as military goes, they put the most cost and weight effective weapons on these troopships. They favored AAguns as being the best defense they can put to not undermine other functional aspect and probably see no other way to deal efficiently against Subs than relying upon escorting Destroyers, Frigates and Corvettes.

    Now, about game depictions, it feels strange that Transports are supposed to be civilian units carrying furniture and wartime supplies, while all other units are typical military ones.
    In game, the typical behaviour of Sub combat against taken last transport does not depict Subs against merchant convoy tactics at all. Instead, it describe the typical situation about naval invasion when many escorting ships keep a secure net to prevent Subs from sinking troopships.

    In game, also, Allies are building TPs to make specific landing and invade directly enemy’s TTs. I’m just asking what kind of transports were built by Allies to this specific purpose?
    What I’ve found yet is a typical unarmored troopship armed with limited AA capacity.

    I’m no more into the abstract idea that a TP is a typical civilian cargo ship.
    We don’t see TP going from EUSA coast past by Iceland and delivering into Murmansk or Archangel, or going South past Cape Horn then land into Persia to deliver Trucks to Moscow.
    This part of war is totally abstract and included into Convoy Disruption.
    I’m just comparing what was the facts around what the game is actually depicting.

    And the more I look into it, at least from the Allies side, the more the abstract idea about typical Transport seems to provide a distorted picture.

    About AA armament effectiveness, it is another point to discuss.
    From an abstract POV, it says that designing such was a loss of resources and time.
    But, if there was no relevance at all, why did they systematically built such on troopships, or take time to convert merchant liners with such?

    Edit: From Germany POV, it seems they took an armed merchant cruiser as a typical TP sculpt.
    But Merchant raiders were not meant for landing troops or tanks…
    Since, Kriegsmarine was caught off-guard, after France invasion success, and unprepared to launch an amphibious assault on England. The little I see, is they see no relevance after calling off The Battle of England to built troopships. And most of resources went to U-boats. But, if instead of going East into Soviet Union, Hitler stayed on course toward England, the sketches and designed I saw from landing crafts and landing ships seems all requiring AA guns armaments.

    EDIT 2: With CWO Marc identification charts, I now can see what kind of ship was this TP unit sculpt Dithmarschen:

    Dithmarschen was being overhauled at the beginning of World War II. From June to November 1940, she supported the battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau during Operation Weserubung, the invasion of Norway. In November, she refueled the cruiser Admiral Hipper during her operations in the Atlantic Ocean. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were again supported in the Atlantic Ocean during Operation Berlin in early 1941. Between October 1941 and December 1942, Dithmarschen operated in the Baltic Sea, supporting German ships during Operation Barbarossa. For the remainder of the war, she operated off Norway. At the end of the war, she had returned to Bremerhaven, where she was taken over by the British.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Conecuh_(AOR-110)
    Such German military Tanker used for amphibious assault of Norway was also equipped with AA armaments or dual purpose:
    Armament Germany: 3 x 150 mm, 2 x 37 mm, 4 x 20 mm;
    armament once taken by US Navy: 8 x 40 mm guns

    For Japan, there is less infos…
    At least, it seems they have done same things than Allies on their Merchant Cruiser Liners and add a few deck guns and AA armaments.
    I saw that Japan give AA armament to merchant ship converted into troop ship on a much lesser extent than Allies.
    I’m still looking into it.
    So, it seems that this poorer Power get no real opportunity to built armed designed troopships or landing ships.
    They gave weapons to warships.
    And use merchant passengers ships converted into troopships as they were.
    Resources were scarce.
    Italy seems to follow this direction too.

    Another case which showed how Allies and US get better Troopships to deal with aircraft:
    @Der:

    Wow - just got back from vacation to see this.

    I’ve been reading Richard Frank’s historic account called Guadalcanal. On pp 79-80 he describes a Japanese air raid on US transports:

    “Twenty-three Bettys …burst out of the East in several groups to charge the fat transports just before noon…the Japanese suffered grievously at the hands of the ship’s gunners. The Bettys rippled the sea surface from an altitude of only 20 to 40 feet in accordance with tactics that brought success early in the war against weak AA defenses. But now the Japanese faced more heavy guns guided by sophisticated fire control systems and, more important a proliferation of the deadly 20 mm antiaircraft machineguns…12 or so adorned each of the sluggish transports, and from some vessels came a further barrage of automatic rifle and submachinegun fire…only five of the attacking Bettys fluttered back to Rabaul…”

    That is history. Under global transport rules, it would have read something like this: “then a single Japanese Betty flew over and all the transports were auto-sunk without firing a shot.”

    To answer some of the requests for more details of our game, what happened was people would decide that they would invade somewhere, then buy ENOUGH TRANSPORTS TO DO THE JOB, and quit. That makes sense - at $10 a pop you are not going to keep spamming transports to use in battles when you can be twice as effective using DDs which cost $8 and attack and defend @2.

    In the new naval setting, BBs need not fear transports - remember they can take the first hit free, and in some versions they are auto-repaired at the end of the battle. If you’ve bought five 10 IPC transports that is $50 worth of shipping there - do you think sane people will run them into battle situations as a regular strategy? We didn’t - it might have happened in dire situations but spamming transports was never strategy used in our group, with DDs available.

    Remember, we’re not talking about going back to the old classic game world with 1 hit BBs and no DDs. We are advocating bringing the classic-type transport into the new global world which is a whole different story.

    Can it be a usual results against an Allied Troopship convoy?

    The He 177As carried Henschel Hs 293 radio-guided, rocket-boosted glide bombs, an estimated 60 of which they launched at the convoy. The convoy’s combined anti-aircraft fire seems to have impeded most of the attackers’ attempts to guide their glide bombs onto their targets. Rohna’s DEMS gunners contributed with her machine guns, Oerlikon autocannons and about 20 rounds from her 12-pounder gun. The convoy shot down at least two aircraft and damaged several others.

    Rohna was the only casualty. About 1715 or 1725 hrs a He 177A piloted by Hans Dochtermann released a glide bomb that hit Rohna on her port side, at the after end of her engine room and Number Six troop deck. Men poured on deck, many of them badly wounded.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMT_Rohna

    It seems a lot of Merchants ship were equipped with AA armaments:

    Old naval guns had been stored since 1918 in ports for possible use. In the Second World War the objective was to equip each ship with a low-angle gun mounted aft as defence against surfaced submarines and a high-angle gun and rifle-calibre machine guns for defence against air attack. 3,400 ships had been armed by the end of 1940; and all ships were armed by 1943.

    The low-angle guns were typically in the 3-inch to 6-inch range (75�150 mm) depending on the size of the ship. Rifle-caliber machine guns were augmented or replaced by Oerlikon 20 mm cannon as they became available. The high-angle QF 12pdr Mk V mount was the most common anti-aircraft gun and later ships sometimes received Bofors 40 mm guns.

    Untrained gunners posed significant risk to friendly aircraft in the absence of efficient communications. DEMS guns were manned by 24,000 Royal Navy personnel and 14,000 men of the Royal Artillery Maritime Regiment. 150,000 merchant sailors were trained to assist by passing ammunition, loading and replacing casualties. Initially, Royal Artillery personnel provided anti-aircraft protection by bringing their own machine-guns aboard ships operating close to the British Isles. DEMS gunners were often retired military personnel and young Hostilities Only ratings, commanded by a petty officer or Royal Marine sergeant. Large ships sometimes embarked a junior naval officer to command the DEMS gunners. Canada placed guns on 713 ships, while the Royal Australian Navy provided gun crews for 375 Australian and other Allied ships.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensively_equipped_merchant_ship
    On D-Day, there was so many AA-guns on Converted Merchant ships that many feared friendly fires upon Allied aircraft

    In 1944, during preparations for the invasion of France called Operation Overlord there was deep concern over the danger to Allied aircraft from the large number of DEMS involved in the landings. A request for volunteer aircraft recognition experts from the Royal Observer Corps produced 1,094 highly qualified candidates, from which 796 were selected to perform valuable aircraft recognition duties as seaborne volunteers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensively_equipped_merchant_ship

    Even Japan with his meagre resources try to add such AA cover to troopships:

    The Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) established several shipping artillery units during the Pacific War. These units provided defensive guns and gun crews for the transport ships operated by the Army, as well as merchant vessels chartered by the service.

    In December 1941 the IJA had a single shipping artillery unit, the Shipping Artillery Regiment. The regiment comprised two anti-aircraft battalions, a machine cannon battalion and a depot responsible for training replacement personnel.

    By early 1944 the Shipping Artillery Regiment had been reorganized into two units, the 1st and 2nd Shipping Artillery Regiments. The 1st Shipping Artillery Regiment was based in Japan. The 2nd Shipping Artillery Regiment was initially based in Singapore, but moved to Manila in the Philippines in July 1944. Each regiment’s table of organization strength was 15 anti-aircraft batteries, three light anti-aircraft batteries, three surface gun batteries, two sea watch companies, a mortar company, a machine gun company, a depth charge company, a hydrophone company and an air watch company. A total of 2,300 soldiers were allocated to each unit. However, the actual strength and organization of the regiments varied.

    Small detachments from the regiments were allocated to individual ships to protect them against submarines and aircraft. As a result, the battalion, battery and company headquarters primarily performed administrative functions.

    The IJA also established the 1st and 2nd Shipping Machine Gun Cannon Regiments to protect small ships. Each of these regiments comprised two light anti-aircraft battalions and a machine gun company. The Imperial Japanese Navy’s Central Pacific Area Fleet also raised small air defence squads from April 1944 which were assigned to individual ships.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Army_shipping_artillery

  • '17 '16

    @Bob77:

    Transports should have a low to zero defense. Period. The units represent the overall flavor of the time period, not individual ships or skirmishes. If a transport wasnt so week on def…there wouldnt have been such tonnage of men and material lost at sea AND these Armed vessels would have been used for defensive patrols instead. Ok…the ship has aa guns and maybe a 5 in…so what? Compare that armament to an escort destroyer. In comparison the transport isnt armed at all. Compare how many escorted transports were sunk against attacking sub, surface ship or plane raids especially compared to the attackers losses.  Those were nothing compared to the shipping losses of unescorted transports. You want to beef up transport value and or realism? Do what the allies did and add destroyers to the convoy for def. Or add a special value for destroyers or transports in a convoy. Try the escort and destroyer rules from the gamers paradise expansion.

    That’s how I played before purchasing Spring 1942.
    According to Philip Schwartzer rule, lonely transport can defend @1 against aircraft (12 IPCs Fighter at that time!) and can eventually escape from warships.
    But, when TP is escorted, Destroyer Escort rise from Defense 2 to Defense 3.
    However, I cannot remember if TPs can still roll against aircraft, I believe so but I’m not sure.

    Defender have to pick transport first and then remaining Destroyer Escort.
    For casualty selection, however it was according to Sub behavior against Convoy.
    And this seems accurate, Allied Subs were aiming at Axis troopships if given the opportunity, not the escort vessels. And sometimes, sunk troopships but were sunk by Axis escorts. See the story of SS California (1923) and SS Duchess of York which were sunk by Focke Wulf Fw200 bombers while escorting vessels remained at sea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_California_(1923)

    However, according to WWII The Expansion rule, aside escorted convoy group, there is also a warship group composed of Destroyers, Cruisers, Carriers and Battleships.

    An attacker had to select between these two targets if both were in the same SZ.

    About SS houserule, giving a minimal 1 roll for 2 Transports on D12 (8.33%/2 = 4.17%) seems OK as a minimal defense.
    And it goes at lower ratio per unit defending, due to combined arms, when you get an odd number:

    1 TP  = 0 roll     0 %
    2 TPs = 1 roll   4.17 %
    3 TPs = 1 roll   2.78 %
    4 TPs = 2 rolls  4.17 %  
    5 TPs = 2 rolls  3.33%
    6 TPs = 3 rolls  4.17 %
    7 TPs = 3 rolls  3.57%
    8 TPs = 4.17%

    The units represent the overall flavor of the time period, not individual ships or skirmishes. If a transport wasnt so week on def…there wouldnt have been such tonnage of men and material lost at sea AND these Armed vessels would have been used for defensive patrols instead.

    It is true that a lot of lend-lease material was lost at sea.
    In G40, this economic war on merchant shipping is translated into Convoy Disruption rule.

    This is how is treated TP case to increase subwarfare, I made up some format edit on post for easier reading:
    @lnmajor:

    Gamers Paradise escort rules.

    Destroyer Escort unit is  A1-D2-M2-C8

    Special ability:
    The convoy rule: Destroyer Escorts defend @3 when there is at least one friendly transport for the first Destroyer Escort, and thereafter at least two friendy transports for every other DE defending in the same seazone. In other words, if you have 5 friendly transports and two friendly DEs defending in the same seazone, you can apply the convoy rule.

    1) Transports alone defending against naval vessels:
    -All naval vessels must try to sink all transports in first round of combat, then transports escape, except with aircraft.

    1. Transports with escorts can not escape from naval vessels, and escorts defend until all escorts and transports are sunk, or naval vessels retreat.
      Transports must be used as casulties first before Destroyer Escorts.

    UNESCORTED TRANSPORTS RULE:
    Submarines and Battleships attacking unescorted transports attack with 1 die @ 4 for each transport, maximum 2 die per sub or Battleship.

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2
  • 17
  • 12
  • 4
  • 85
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

37

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts